Local News

Hot Topics:

Expert opinions: Was it a good idea to put Stetler on the stand?

By TERESA ANN BOECKEL

Daily Record/Sunday News

Updated:
06/21/2012 09:20:23 PM EDT

Was it a good idea to put Stetler on the stand?

Korey Leslie, a defense attorney based in York.
(SUBMITTED)

Korey Leslie

I believe Mr. Stetler taking the stand in his own defense, though not required, was a good idea because it allowed the jury to view his actions, hear his words and make their own determination on his credibility. He took the stand and vehemently refuted claims put to the jury by Commonwealth witnesses. He has presented witnesses to corroborate his testimony. The decision to testify was wise unless, of course, the Commonwealth has rebuttal evidence that will eviscerate Mr. Stetler's defense.

* * *

Josh Neiderhiser, a former senior prosecutor, works as a defense attorney in York.
(SUBMITTED)

Joshua Neiderhiser

Typically I'm against putting a defendant on the stand because of the prosecution's opportunity to cross-examine them. However, in this case I think it was necessary for Stetler to testify.

Advertisement

The jury had to hear from him about all of the periods of time in question.

* * *

Doug France, a defense attorney based in York.
(SUBMITTED)

Douglas P. France

Despite the constitutional requirement that a defendant does not have to testify, the jury always loves to hear a defendant take the stand and deny the prosecution's allegations. However, the real test of the defense case will be the ability of the defense to put forth testimony from other witnesses which also directly contradicts the prosecution's case. The burden on the prosecution is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, testimony from witnesses other than the defendant generally has a greater impact on the prosecution's ability to sustain their burden.

* * *

G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College.
(SUBMITTED)

G. Terry Madonna

Yes, Stetler's testimony seemed credible and clear. He did not waiver and the prosecution did not produce very many witnesses that argued they received specific orders to perform campaign duties on state time -- a departure from past public corruption cases.

* * *

Ed Paskey, a former first deputy district attorney, works as a defense attorney in York.
(SUBMITTED)

Edward A. Paskey

A defendant should decide whether or not to testify based on their counsel's advice. Ultimately, the decision to testify rests with the defendant and defendant alone.

In this case, I believe it was extremely important for him to testify. Stetler is a likeable person. That is an invaluable aspect to his testimony. Next, it is always helpful to have a defendant directly refute evidence. A judge can instruct a jury as much as possible that no adverse inference should be taken by a defendant deciding not to testify. But as a practical matter, and as human beings, jurors are naturally inclined to want to hear the denial. Finally, now that he has testified, it sets up the possibility of presenting character witness testimony that Stetler has a reputation in the community as an honest person. A trial is about assigning blame. Stetler testifying makes assigning blame more difficult.

* * *

Steve Rice, a defense attorney based in Gettysburg and practices in York.
(SUBMITTED)

Steve Rice

Yes. Jones's testimony was a potential game changer. By itself, it isn't good enough to convict because he probably would've said whatever the prosecution wanted him to say to keep himself out of trouble. But it would've been difficult to defuse with all the other smaller bomb throwers the prosecution marched before the jury. Someone needed to flatly contradict Jones, to give Lock a reasonable chance to neutralize him in his closing argument. Stetler, plus the three witnesses who backed him up, should do the trick (unless there is direct corroboration for Jones's claims).

* * *

Anne Bowen Poulin, a professor of law at Villanova University School of Law.
(SUBMITTED)

Anne Bowen Poulin

Overall, Mr. Stetler's decision to testify makes sense. If he did not take the stand, the jury would almost inevitably wonder why and take it as an indication of guilt (even though the court will instruct them not to draw that negative inference). By testifying, Stetler placed his credibility in direct conflict with the immunized witness, John Paul Jones. Juries don't like immunity and may reject Jones' testimony because he got off entirely for his part in the alleged criminal conduct. But it is unusual for the defendant to testify before other defense witnesses. The defense may have wanted Stetler to speak to the jury before they adjourned for the weekend, leaving them with his denial as the last testimony before the recess.

* * *

Suzanne Smith, a defense attorney based in York.
(SUBMITTED)

Suzanne Smith

Although the law says the defendant has no burden in a criminal case, most people generally think if you are innocent you have nothing to hide and you will want to tell everyone you did not do it. In addition, if there is evidence that can only come from your client - then the client has to take the stand. In this case, it is likely that only Mr. Stetler could testify that John Paul Jones lied - there is probably no one else with that information.

How the witness "presents on the stand" is also a factor that needs to be considered. If Mr. Stetler came off as believable then it is helpful for him to testify. In comparison, we know that Mr. Sandusky did not testify. I would say that was probably a good decision based on the interviews I saw of him - he did not present well. Although, people like to hear the person say they did not do it.
So, I say, yes, it was a good idea for Mr. Stetler to testify.

* * *

David A. Harris, a professor of law and associate dean for research for the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
(SUBMITTED)

David A. Harris

Juries always want to hear from a defendant. But good defense lawyers know that any time you can put on a case without the defendant testifying, it's the smarter course to take. Any defendant, even a truthful one, can be made to look like a liar by a skilled cross-examiner, so there is a big risk in having the defendant take the stand. The cross-examination of Stetler, in which he was confronted with an email directly contradicting what he testified to, definitely hurt him.